Hardell group's re-analysis of the Interphone methods'' was written on the December 18, 2010 at 2:00 pm on ''EMFacts Consultancy''.

Press release

Swedish �rebro studies on mobile phone use and risk for brain tumour
re-analysed using the same methods as in Interphone: Increased risk
in both studies and the critique of Interphone is reinforced

The international WHO Interphone study was published in May 2010. The
results showed an increased risk for malignant brain tumours (glioma)
for the heaviest user of mobile phones, (1,640 hours or more in
total). The studies on brain tumour risk from the Hardell-group at the
University Hospital, �rebro, Sweden have been criticized for
seemingly higher risk for mobile phone use than in other studies.

In a new analysis of the results from �rebro it is found that similar
results as in Interphone are obtained if restriction of the material
and methods is made according to the WHO study. The results are now
published in International Journal of Epidemiology on Internet.

The WHO Interphone study included only persons diagnosed with brain
tumour at the age of 30-59 years. Use of cordless desktop phones
(DECT) was not assessed. Furthermore, the highest exposure group was
restricted to persons who had used a mobile phone for 1,640 hours or
more in total. That corresponds to only 30 minutes per day over a time
period of 10 years.

On the contrary, the �rebro studies included patients with brain
tumour aged 20-80 years. Use of cordless phone was surveyed as
carefully as use of mobile phone. The group with highest exposure
included persons who had used a mobile phone more than in Interphone;
2,000 hours or more.

The �rebro group has now in the new paper restricted the analysis to
the criteria used in the WHO study. Only patients and control subjects
aged 30-59 years were included, use of cordless phone was disregarded
and highest exposure was limited to 1,640 hours or more. Thereby the
risk for glioma was lowered from odds ratio (OR) 2.31 to OR 1.75 in
the most exposed group. The corresponding result in Interphone was OR
1.41. Similar results were found in both studies for tumours in the
most exposed area of the brain (the temporal lobe), but now it is
Interphone that gives a higher risk, OR 1.87, compared with OR 1.46 in
the �rebo study.

Besides similar results in both studies when the same criteria are
used, this analysis confirms the critique of the Interphone study. The
risk has been underestimated since persons aged 20-29 years and more
than 60 years of age were excluded, use of cordless phones was not
assessed and risk for the most exposed persons was not analysed.

In conclusion both studies showed a statistically significantly
doubled risk for glioma at the same side as the mobile phone had been
used for 1,640 hours or more; �rebro study OR 2.18, Interphone OR
1.96. Simlar results were thus obtained in both studies if the same
criteria were used in the analysis, that is type of phone (only
mobile), cumulative number of hours for use, age group, and anatomical
localisation of the brain tumour compared with exposure to microwaves
from the mobile phone.